Orissa

Rayagada

CC/63/2017

Smt. Jyotshna Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Rani Electrical and Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Self

04 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 63 / 2017.                                                          Date.    4     .     7  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Smt. Jyotshna Rani  Moharana,   W/O: Ajaya Kumar Ojha, Bijaya Bhandar Lane,  Po/Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                      …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Rani Electrical  and Electronics, Sales and Service, House of Electronics and home appliance, B.C. Road, J.K.Pur, Dist: Rayagada.

2.The Manager,Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,  Mathura Road,  New Delhi-110044.                  .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri R.K.Padhy and associates, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri R.K.Saranti and Sri R.K.Senapati,Advocates.

JUDGEMENT

          The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for   non  replacement of T.V. set  LED  22” with a new one  within warranty period for which  the complainant  sought compensation  inter alia  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 & 2  filed written version inter alia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking one  & other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents,  written version filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law                                           

                                                                                  FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a  Sony BRAVIA model KLV-22P4130 having   Sl. No.8504214 from the O.P. No.1    by paying a sum of Rs. 14,100/-  with cash/credit bill No. 281 Dt.27.5.2016   with  one year warranty. (Copies of the  bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after  some  months  of its purchase  the above  set found defective and not functioning i.e. such as problem  was display problem, Colour problem  and starting problem  etc   and not  functioning with  other problems. The complainant complained the O.Ps Service centre, for necessary repair  even such service the above problems persisting in the above set and being asked  O.Ps authorized person advised to move the matter to the company either for replacement or refund  of the price, but the manufacturing company had paid deaf ear to the genuine complaint.  Hence the above C.C. case.

The O.Ps   in  their written version  has not disputed towards purchase of  above set.

             The O.Ps.   in their written version para No. 2 contended that the present complaint is not maintainable at all as there is no single proof against the O.Ps  which says that the  LED was ever brought to any of the authorized service centre of  O.P.  NO.2 or it has  any inherent    defect/  Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reason that in the absence of any service  history or any kind of detail available with the O.Ps, no cause of action  arises  to entertain the present case.

            The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.4 contended that the  complainant has not  able to furnish the details with respect to the aforesaid LED nor any supporting  documents have been annexed by the   complainant to prove his case.  In these circumstances, the presumption lies that the complainant never approached    O.Ps  raising any kind of issue with respect to the aforesaid LED and the complainant has been  using the said LED satisfactorily and without any trouble.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.6 contended that  the complainant has filed this present complaint simply on the pretext of baseless allegations.   It is relevant to mention that no service details were mentioned in the  complaint  which clearly establishes the fact that the complainant never approached  any of the authorized service centre raising any issue with respect to the said LED.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.7 contended that  there is no specific allegation  against O.Ps  with any evidentiary proof in the present complaint.  All the allegations made against  O.Ps are without any documentary proof. Hence, in such a scenario O.Ps have no liability  towards the complainant.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.8 contended that  the complainant approached  the forum after satisfactorily using the LED for almost 1 year.  Whereas   the  warranty  with respect to the said LED is only for  1 year.  Considering   the facts and circumstances of this present  case, the present  case is liable  be dismissed.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.9 contended that  no material evidence has been placed on record by the  complainant which says that the LED was having any inherent defect. The entire complaint is on the basis of false allegations    and without  any documentary evidence. In the absence of any strong proof, the present complaint is liable to   be  dismissed.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.10 contended that  any inherent defect in the said LED, the complainant would have surely contacted O.Ps or any of the authorised  service centre of O.P. No.2  right  in the beginning.  But herein the present case the complainant never approached any of the service centre and moreover, the complainant has also not furnished any  details with respect to any service history.  This  clearly implies that there is no inherent defect in the LED. The only purpose of the complainant is gain wrongfully by filing this present complaint.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.11 contended that  in the present  circumstances, “deficiency  in service” can not be questioned on the part of the O.Ps. The  complainant   is not ready to present the LED for inspection. Considering the said  facts the presumption   lies that the complainant has some malafide intention  to gain wrongfully from the O.Ps.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.12 contended that  the O.Ps could  have  resolved the issue, had there been  any idea regarding  the status of the LED . The in-warranty services are only applicable in the cases where there is no physical damage  or there is a fault on the  part of the company.  But in the present the status of the LED is actually unknown and  the complainant has also failed to furnish any details with respect to the service history of the said LED.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.13 contended that  the factum of the present case is very well covered by the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vrs. Pratap 1997 (2) CPJ -81  where in it was held that where the complaints of the complainant were  duly and promptly attended by the O.P. and no reliable evidence was produced by the complainant in support of his case that he suffered a loss due to inconvenience caused to him, the complainant in that case is not entitled to any relief.In the present matter the O.P’s have duly  attended the complaints of the complainant and have therefore never been deficient in providing the services to the complainant.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.14 contended inter alia relied citation in the matter of Sabeena Cycle Emporium  Chennakhaada Vrs. Thaies Ravi M.R. Pancha Villa Vedar Ezkhone P.O. 1991 (1) CPJ -97 where in the Hon’ble  Kerela  State Commission  observed  that where the complainant alleges defecs in the goods, the forum is bound to determine this fact on the  basis of clear evidence by way of expect opinion. The aforesaid proposition of law has also been  reaffirmed by the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal in the case of Keshab Ram Mahto Vrs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd  Anr. 2003(2) CPJ-244.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.15 contended  that  complainant  has  failed to furnish any documents which  says that the LED set was ever brought to any of service centre. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the complainant to prove and establish any inherent defect in the handset.

The O.Ps.   in their written version last para contended that the complainant has failed to bring on record any material  evidence which shows that the LED in question was ever brought to any of the service centre of the O.P. No.2.  In the absence of any service history/job sheet the presumption clearly lies that the LED has no inherent defect and the complainant  is unnecessarily trying to the gain  wrongfully from the complainant.  In view of the facts and circumstances of this present case, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the sole question of determination is  Whether  the complainant is entitled  for any relief    made by him ?

On perusal of the documents it is revealed that despite several adjournments taken  by the complainant for the purpose of filing relevant papers, the complainant failed to produce any documents in support of his claim.  When material  facts  pleaded by the complainant in support of his claim have been denied by the  O.P. No.2 to 4  the complainant is duty bound   to substantiate his claim by producing relevant documents there for, but he has failed to do so.  On the basis of mere pleadings of the complainant, which is no evidence, no positive finding can be recorded in regard to his claim. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the petition made by the complainant vis-à-vis  non satisfaction of his relief  is  devoid of any merit.

This forum observed  evidence on record it is concluded that the  complainant miserably  failed to establish his claim before the forum  and hence  the petition is dismissed against the O.Ps.  Further  the complainant also has not filed  service report of the service centre before the forum in the present case in hand.

In the present case there is no material placed on record to show negligence from the part of this answering O.P.  Here in the instant case the complainant has  not even proved the losses suffered by him.  

This forum completely agreed with views taken  and the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled for  any  relief sought for  from this forum and  shall   liable to be dismissed.

However the O.Ps are directed to rectify the defects  of the above  set free of cost  if the complainant  approached. to the O.Ps  to rectify the defect of her   set  and shall provide all sort of after sale service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the  warranty of the afore said  LED set.

Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is  not entitled to  any claim.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.   

                                                                       

 

                                                                        O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  disposed off on contest against the O.Ps.

            There is  no order as to cost and compensation.

                       

Dictated and corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on            4th.       day  of    July, 2018.

 

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT